Posts
RedState
Warner Todd Huston
In a turn of events that should and will be used by bloggers all across the country, three news bloggers have prevailed over the New York City Police Dept. and received their press credentials despite being denied previously without explanation.
The New York Times City Room Blog reports that that Rafael MartÃnez Alequin, Ralph E. Smith and David Wallis filed a federal lawsuit when each of them were denied credentials, even though all of them had such credentials in the past.
In the face of the lawsuit, the NYPD changed their minds and issued the three their press cards, anyway. This move gives other bloggers across the country hope for legitimacy in the eyes of government officials.
“This step recognizes that bloggers are 21st-century journalists,” Mr. Siegel, a noted civil liberties lawyer who has announced plans to run for public advocate next year, said in a phone interview. “It’s an important first step, but only a first step, because we still need to address the constitutional problem of who gets press credentials in New York City. The Police Department should not be in the business of determining who’s a journalist.”
Bloggers should carefully cite this precedent and store it away for future reference
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Forced abortions - America's secret epidemic
OneNewsNow
Elliot Institute spokesperson Amy Solby tells OneNewsNow that one study found 64 percent of women who had abortions reported they felt pressured to abort by others. "Something like 80 percent of them said that they didn't get the counseling they needed to make a good decision, that often they were not given counseling at all, or that the counseling they had was inadequate," she explains.
Solby also mentions forced abortions, which are not widely discussed in the U.S.
An article released from the Institute cites two cases in 2006 in which teenage girls were violently persuaded to have abortions. In Maine, a couple abducted their 19-year-old daughter, bound and gagged her, and drove her to New York for an abortion. However, she escaped from her parents in the parking lot of a store and called police from her cell phone. That same year, a Georgia mother forced her pregnant 16-year-old daughter to drink turpentine in hopes of aborting her baby.
She was later arrested for criminal abortion after her daughter told the school counselor about the incident.
The Institute has studied other cases where women are commonly threatened, pressured, or subjected to violence for refusing to abort. "There's not any necessarily real hard numbers on violent [coercion] but, if you consider that homicide is the leading killer of pregnant women according to several studies, and then the fact that a large number of them have to do with the fact that the woman was killed or assaulted...because she refused to have an abortion or in an attempt to force her to abort," Solby concludes.
The Elliot Institute is trying to convince states to pass laws forcing abortion facilities to screen women for coercion and not to do an abortion where coercion is involved. Solby believes women then could be helped with whatever situation they are facing.
So why aren't these cases of force being reported?
For one, it doesn't fit the mainstream liberal agenda of abortion and number two abortion is big business. Despite what liberals want to think and what they want you to think, abortion providers are in it for the money, and there is plenty of it. The killing of innocent babies is big business!
According to a 2002 report by STOPP International
Based upon an estimated average cost of $400 per abortion, STOPP estimates that (Planned Parenthood)PPFA had a total income of $90,950,000 from abortion procedures in 2002. STOPP has made a yearly estimate of PPFA’s abortion income for each year 1977 – 2002 based upon an estimated average cost of an abortion in each particular year. Please view the results in the chart, Estimated Planned Parenthood Abortion Income 1977 – 2002. Adding up each year’s estimated abortion income from 1977 to 2002 gives a total of about $985,000,000 of income from abortion during that period.
For its 2002-2003 fiscal year, PPFA reported a total income of $766.6 million, which is an increase of 10.7 % over the previous year. Clinic income of $288.2 million accounted for 36% of the total income, while government grants and contracts ($254.4 million) accounted for 33%, and private contributions ($228.1 million) accounted for 30%. PPFA listed end of the year net assets of $688.0 million. Since 1987, PPFA has reported a total of $8,350,300,000 of income with $2,947,000,000 coming from clinic income (36%), $2,709,300,000 coming from government grants and contracts (32%), and 2,244,500,000 coming from private contributions (27%).
PPFA’s IRS Form 990 for the fiscal year 2002-2003 is posted on a PPFA web page. Therein was listed the following information about how much several key national employees are paid:
Gloria Feldt, President: Compensation = $363,426, Benefits = $16,362, Expenses & Other = $80,489
Planned Parenthood Action Fund President Compensation = $18,171
Vanessa Cullins, VP Medical Affairs: Compensation = $214,200, Benefits = $11,005
George Stokes, Chief Operating Officer: Compensation = $200,000, Benefits = $4,846
Joan Coombs, Chief Campaign Officer: Compensation = $185,640, Benefits = $11,120
Russell Lefevre, Chief Strategic Officer: Compensation = $179,230, Benefits = $10,370
Dan Rutberg, VP Information & Technology: Compensation = $177,366, Benefits = $9,524
Jeff Mechanick, Chief Financial Officer: Compensation = $172,152, Benefits = $9,339
Suellen Craig, VP Executive Office: Compensation = $177,028, Benefits = $9,092
THE RYAN REPORT
Elliot Institute spokesperson Amy Solby tells OneNewsNow that one study found 64 percent of women who had abortions reported they felt pressured to abort by others. "Something like 80 percent of them said that they didn't get the counseling they needed to make a good decision, that often they were not given counseling at all, or that the counseling they had was inadequate," she explains.Solby also mentions forced abortions, which are not widely discussed in the U.S.
An article released from the Institute cites two cases in 2006 in which teenage girls were violently persuaded to have abortions. In Maine, a couple abducted their 19-year-old daughter, bound and gagged her, and drove her to New York for an abortion. However, she escaped from her parents in the parking lot of a store and called police from her cell phone. That same year, a Georgia mother forced her pregnant 16-year-old daughter to drink turpentine in hopes of aborting her baby.
She was later arrested for criminal abortion after her daughter told the school counselor about the incident.
The Institute has studied other cases where women are commonly threatened, pressured, or subjected to violence for refusing to abort. "There's not any necessarily real hard numbers on violent [coercion] but, if you consider that homicide is the leading killer of pregnant women according to several studies, and then the fact that a large number of them have to do with the fact that the woman was killed or assaulted...because she refused to have an abortion or in an attempt to force her to abort," Solby concludes.
The Elliot Institute is trying to convince states to pass laws forcing abortion facilities to screen women for coercion and not to do an abortion where coercion is involved. Solby believes women then could be helped with whatever situation they are facing.
So why aren't these cases of force being reported?
For one, it doesn't fit the mainstream liberal agenda of abortion and number two abortion is big business. Despite what liberals want to think and what they want you to think, abortion providers are in it for the money, and there is plenty of it. The killing of innocent babies is big business!
According to a 2002 report by STOPP International
Based upon an estimated average cost of $400 per abortion, STOPP estimates that (Planned Parenthood)PPFA had a total income of $90,950,000 from abortion procedures in 2002. STOPP has made a yearly estimate of PPFA’s abortion income for each year 1977 – 2002 based upon an estimated average cost of an abortion in each particular year. Please view the results in the chart, Estimated Planned Parenthood Abortion Income 1977 – 2002. Adding up each year’s estimated abortion income from 1977 to 2002 gives a total of about $985,000,000 of income from abortion during that period.
For its 2002-2003 fiscal year, PPFA reported a total income of $766.6 million, which is an increase of 10.7 % over the previous year. Clinic income of $288.2 million accounted for 36% of the total income, while government grants and contracts ($254.4 million) accounted for 33%, and private contributions ($228.1 million) accounted for 30%. PPFA listed end of the year net assets of $688.0 million. Since 1987, PPFA has reported a total of $8,350,300,000 of income with $2,947,000,000 coming from clinic income (36%), $2,709,300,000 coming from government grants and contracts (32%), and 2,244,500,000 coming from private contributions (27%).
PPFA’s IRS Form 990 for the fiscal year 2002-2003 is posted on a PPFA web page. Therein was listed the following information about how much several key national employees are paid:
Gloria Feldt, President: Compensation = $363,426, Benefits = $16,362, Expenses & Other = $80,489
Planned Parenthood Action Fund President Compensation = $18,171
Vanessa Cullins, VP Medical Affairs: Compensation = $214,200, Benefits = $11,005
George Stokes, Chief Operating Officer: Compensation = $200,000, Benefits = $4,846
Joan Coombs, Chief Campaign Officer: Compensation = $185,640, Benefits = $11,120
Russell Lefevre, Chief Strategic Officer: Compensation = $179,230, Benefits = $10,370
Dan Rutberg, VP Information & Technology: Compensation = $177,366, Benefits = $9,524
Jeff Mechanick, Chief Financial Officer: Compensation = $172,152, Benefits = $9,339
Suellen Craig, VP Executive Office: Compensation = $177,028, Benefits = $9,092
THE RYAN REPORT
2nd Amendment Alert!
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)
SUMMARY AS OF:
1/6/2009--Introduced.
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements.
Prohibits transferring or receiving a qualifying firearm unless the recipient presents a valid firearms license, the license is verified, and the dealer records a tracking authorization number. Prescribes firearms transfer reporting and record keeping requirements. Directs the Attorney General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system.
Prohibits: (1) transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions; (2) a licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act; (3) failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours; (4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days; or (5) keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.
Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act. Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse; (2) conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and (3) collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer.
Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.
Monday, January 12, 2009
GM to build Chevrolet Volt batteries in Michigan
Mlive.com
Rick Haglund
January 12, 2009 10:42AM
Categories: Breaking News
DETROIT -- In a major economic development win for Michigan, General Motors Corp. will build a lithium-ion battery pack manufacturing plant in the state, GM Chairman Rick Wagoner said this morning.
Speaking at the North American International Auto Show, Wagoner also said GM will build the largest advanced battery development center in the United States in Michigan. And the automaker also will form an advanced battery research partnership with the University of Michigan that will train students to become battery engineers.
The battery manufacturing plant and the research center are subject to negotiations with state and local governments over financial incentives to build the centers. The Michigan Legislature recently passed legislation to give battery manufacturers $335 million in tax creates to locate plants here.
Wagoner said the batteries GM manufactures will be used in the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid, expected to go on sale late next year. The exact location of the plant hasn't been determined.
"Yes, GM is getting back in the battery business," Wagoner told journalist at the auto show.
GM used to make automotive batteries under the Delco brand.
Wagoner also said GM has selected Korean battery maker LG Chem to make the individual battery cells used in the packs GM will manufacture. LG Chem has a partnership with Compact Power in Troy to make battery cells.
Rick Haglund
January 12, 2009 10:42AM
Categories: Breaking News
DETROIT -- In a major economic development win for Michigan, General Motors Corp. will build a lithium-ion battery pack manufacturing plant in the state, GM Chairman Rick Wagoner said this morning.
Speaking at the North American International Auto Show, Wagoner also said GM will build the largest advanced battery development center in the United States in Michigan. And the automaker also will form an advanced battery research partnership with the University of Michigan that will train students to become battery engineers.The battery manufacturing plant and the research center are subject to negotiations with state and local governments over financial incentives to build the centers. The Michigan Legislature recently passed legislation to give battery manufacturers $335 million in tax creates to locate plants here.
Wagoner said the batteries GM manufactures will be used in the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid, expected to go on sale late next year. The exact location of the plant hasn't been determined.
"Yes, GM is getting back in the battery business," Wagoner told journalist at the auto show.
GM used to make automotive batteries under the Delco brand.
Wagoner also said GM has selected Korean battery maker LG Chem to make the individual battery cells used in the packs GM will manufacture. LG Chem has a partnership with Compact Power in Troy to make battery cells.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?
OneNewsNow
by Marcia Segelstein
Arthur Brooks, in his book “Gross National Happiness,” says yes. Approaching the subject of happiness from a scientific point of view, Brooks conducted research to determine, well, what determines happiness.
Being married and believing in God are among the top indicators for happiness, and conservatives
are more married and more faith-oriented than liberals. Based on Brooks’ research, conservatives are generally twice as happy as liberals – and describe themselves as such.
Among Brooks’ other findings: work makes people happy. Seventy percent of Americans say they would continue working even if they became financially independent. Giving money away to charity also makes people happy. Brooks describes it as the only way to “buy” happiness.
by Marcia Segelstein
Arthur Brooks, in his book “Gross National Happiness,” says yes. Approaching the subject of happiness from a scientific point of view, Brooks conducted research to determine, well, what determines happiness.
Being married and believing in God are among the top indicators for happiness, and conservatives
are more married and more faith-oriented than liberals. Based on Brooks’ research, conservatives are generally twice as happy as liberals – and describe themselves as such.Among Brooks’ other findings: work makes people happy. Seventy percent of Americans say they would continue working even if they became financially independent. Giving money away to charity also makes people happy. Brooks describes it as the only way to “buy” happiness.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
2nd Amendment Alert--Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'
"a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
2nd Amendment, United States Constitution
January 06, 2009
By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily
A perfect storm is developing for Second Amendment opponents that could allow President-elect Barack Obama's choice for attorney general – Eric Holder – to "ban guns at will" despite the 2008 affirmation from the U.S. Supreme Court that U.S. citizens have a right to bear arms.
The situation was described with alarm by Alan Korwin, author of Gun Laws of America, in a recent commentary.
He cited Holder's known support for gun bans – the former Clinton administration official endorsed the District of Columbia's complete ban on functional guns in residents' homes before it was overturned by the Supreme Court.
And Korwin pointed to overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress as well as Obama's known support for gun restrictions and his presence in the Oval Office.
Thirdly, Korwin, one of many Second Amendment advocates raising concerns, cited a proposal already submitted to Congress at a time when its backers could not reasonably expect it to succeed.
The submission is H.R. 1022 by New York Democrat Carolyn McCarthy and 67 co-sponsors. It was introduced in February 2007 and the next month referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, where it has stayed.
But that could change in the 111th Congress, sworn in today. And Korwin said the plan would allow the U.S. Attorney General – possibly Holder – to add to the list of guns banned to the public any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."
"Note that … Holder … wrote a brief in the (District of Columbia) Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home," Korwin said.
In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."
"In plain English," Korwin said, "This means that any firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public. That presumption can be challenged only by suing the federal government over each firearm it decides to ban, in a court it runs with a judge it pays. This virtually dismisses the principles of the Second Amendment.
"The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn't have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose – is that devious or what? And of course, 'sporting purpose' is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent," he said.
Korwin told WND a new proposal to replace H.R. 1022 is not expected to be less draconian.
"Remember – these bans were proposed when the congressional anti-rights crowd had no chance of success. Now they are ready to run wild, or according to Sarah (Brady) herself, 'I have never been so confident,'" Korwin wrote, referring to the champion of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, which requires background checks on purchasers of handguns.
Korwin said the Democrats listed in H.R. 1022 a framework for guns to be banned that includes originals, copies or duplicates of a wide-ranging list of shotguns, pistols and rifles.
One of the red flags for semiautomatic rifles would be "anything" that can serve as a grip, and as set up now, the Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee "are all sworn enemies to the Second Amendment and are unlikely to be swayed at all by any firearms related arguments," he said.
The Republicans all "need to be pressed hard to do everything they can to block the appointment."
Further, with the expectation that Obama will appoint at least one or two Supreme Court justices, further damage could be just a vote or two away, he said.
"If he can get a 5-4 or 6-3 majority who dislike gun rights, you could find that your [Second Amendment] rights aren't what they've been for 200 years," Korwin said.
John Snyder assembled a list of prominent critics of the Holder nomination.for the Firearms Coalition.
"A former Ohio secretary of state, (Ken) Blackwell notes that, 'despite Obama's new lip service to the Second Amendment, Holder signed onto a brief earlier this year (2008) reaffirming his long-held position that the Second Amendment confers no rights whatsoever to private citizens, and that the Supreme Court should have upheld D.C.'s absolute ban on handguns, even in homes."
Snyder also cited comments from Brian Darling, director of U.S. Senate Relations at the Heritage Foundation, that Holder's position "strongly suggests that Holder is hostile to private gun ownership and will work to restrict gun rights."
Shotgun News columnist Jeff Knox wrote, "The gun rights community should make every effort to see to it that Holder's nomination is withdrawn or rejected."
According to Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb, Holder has supported handgun licensing and mandatory trigger locks. He also lobbied for limits on gun shows.
"This is not the record of a man who will come to office as the nation's top law enforcement officer with the rights and concerns of gun owners in mind," Gottlieb wrote.
"America's 85 million gun owners have ample reason to be pessimistic about how their civil rights will fare under the Obama administration," Gottlieb said. "Mr. Obama will have a Congress with an anti-gun Democrat majority leadership to push his gun control agenda. Gun owners have not forgotten Mr. Obama's acknowledged opposition to concealed carry rights, nor his support for a ban on handgun ownership when he was running for the Illinois state senate."
The issue of gun rights is more important than many believe, wrote Joseph Farah, WND's founder and editor, in a recent column. He cited a study from the University of Maryland and University of Michigan that uncovered a beneficial link between gun shows and crime.
"We find a sharp decline in the number of gun homicides in the weeks immediately following a gun show," the study concluded. Furthermore, in Texas they found "gun shows reduce the number of gun homicides by 16 in the average year."
"Holder’s appointment to be AG must be approved by the Senate," wrote David Codrea in the Examiner. "While it is highly unlikely that opponents could muster the 51 votes needed to reject Holder's appointment, a single senator can place a 'hold' on the confirmation and effectively lock up the system just as Democrats did with a number of President Bush's judicial appointments and the appointment of John Bolton to be Ambassador to the U.N."
The Supreme Court decided in the D.C. vs. Heller case that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to own firearms, not just the right for states to form armed militias.
The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Justice Antonin Scalia said in the majority opinion.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing in dissent, said the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
Scalia said the ruling should not "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Joining Stevens in dissent were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
The amendment, ratified in 1791, says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
2nd Amendment, United States Constitution
January 06, 2009
By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily
A perfect storm is developing for Second Amendment opponents that could allow President-elect Barack Obama's choice for attorney general – Eric Holder – to "ban guns at will" despite the 2008 affirmation from the U.S. Supreme Court that U.S. citizens have a right to bear arms.
The situation was described with alarm by Alan Korwin, author of Gun Laws of America, in a recent commentary.
He cited Holder's known support for gun bans – the former Clinton administration official endorsed the District of Columbia's complete ban on functional guns in residents' homes before it was overturned by the Supreme Court.
And Korwin pointed to overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress as well as Obama's known support for gun restrictions and his presence in the Oval Office.
Thirdly, Korwin, one of many Second Amendment advocates raising concerns, cited a proposal already submitted to Congress at a time when its backers could not reasonably expect it to succeed.
The submission is H.R. 1022 by New York Democrat Carolyn McCarthy and 67 co-sponsors. It was introduced in February 2007 and the next month referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, where it has stayed.
But that could change in the 111th Congress, sworn in today. And Korwin said the plan would allow the U.S. Attorney General – possibly Holder – to add to the list of guns banned to the public any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."
"Note that … Holder … wrote a brief in the (District of Columbia) Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home," Korwin said.
In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."
"In plain English," Korwin said, "This means that any firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public. That presumption can be challenged only by suing the federal government over each firearm it decides to ban, in a court it runs with a judge it pays. This virtually dismisses the principles of the Second Amendment.
"The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn't have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose – is that devious or what? And of course, 'sporting purpose' is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent," he said.
Korwin told WND a new proposal to replace H.R. 1022 is not expected to be less draconian.
"Remember – these bans were proposed when the congressional anti-rights crowd had no chance of success. Now they are ready to run wild, or according to Sarah (Brady) herself, 'I have never been so confident,'" Korwin wrote, referring to the champion of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, which requires background checks on purchasers of handguns.
Korwin said the Democrats listed in H.R. 1022 a framework for guns to be banned that includes originals, copies or duplicates of a wide-ranging list of shotguns, pistols and rifles.
One of the red flags for semiautomatic rifles would be "anything" that can serve as a grip, and as set up now, the Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee "are all sworn enemies to the Second Amendment and are unlikely to be swayed at all by any firearms related arguments," he said.
The Republicans all "need to be pressed hard to do everything they can to block the appointment."
Further, with the expectation that Obama will appoint at least one or two Supreme Court justices, further damage could be just a vote or two away, he said.
"If he can get a 5-4 or 6-3 majority who dislike gun rights, you could find that your [Second Amendment] rights aren't what they've been for 200 years," Korwin said.
John Snyder assembled a list of prominent critics of the Holder nomination.for the Firearms Coalition.
"A former Ohio secretary of state, (Ken) Blackwell notes that, 'despite Obama's new lip service to the Second Amendment, Holder signed onto a brief earlier this year (2008) reaffirming his long-held position that the Second Amendment confers no rights whatsoever to private citizens, and that the Supreme Court should have upheld D.C.'s absolute ban on handguns, even in homes."
Snyder also cited comments from Brian Darling, director of U.S. Senate Relations at the Heritage Foundation, that Holder's position "strongly suggests that Holder is hostile to private gun ownership and will work to restrict gun rights."
Shotgun News columnist Jeff Knox wrote, "The gun rights community should make every effort to see to it that Holder's nomination is withdrawn or rejected."
According to Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb, Holder has supported handgun licensing and mandatory trigger locks. He also lobbied for limits on gun shows.
"This is not the record of a man who will come to office as the nation's top law enforcement officer with the rights and concerns of gun owners in mind," Gottlieb wrote.
"America's 85 million gun owners have ample reason to be pessimistic about how their civil rights will fare under the Obama administration," Gottlieb said. "Mr. Obama will have a Congress with an anti-gun Democrat majority leadership to push his gun control agenda. Gun owners have not forgotten Mr. Obama's acknowledged opposition to concealed carry rights, nor his support for a ban on handgun ownership when he was running for the Illinois state senate."
The issue of gun rights is more important than many believe, wrote Joseph Farah, WND's founder and editor, in a recent column. He cited a study from the University of Maryland and University of Michigan that uncovered a beneficial link between gun shows and crime.
"We find a sharp decline in the number of gun homicides in the weeks immediately following a gun show," the study concluded. Furthermore, in Texas they found "gun shows reduce the number of gun homicides by 16 in the average year."
"Holder’s appointment to be AG must be approved by the Senate," wrote David Codrea in the Examiner. "While it is highly unlikely that opponents could muster the 51 votes needed to reject Holder's appointment, a single senator can place a 'hold' on the confirmation and effectively lock up the system just as Democrats did with a number of President Bush's judicial appointments and the appointment of John Bolton to be Ambassador to the U.N."
The Supreme Court decided in the D.C. vs. Heller case that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to own firearms, not just the right for states to form armed militias.
The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Justice Antonin Scalia said in the majority opinion.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing in dissent, said the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
Scalia said the ruling should not "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Joining Stevens in dissent were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
The amendment, ratified in 1791, says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Blackwater Down
IBD
Justice: Once again, Americans asked to put their lives on the line go on trial. Their crime was doing the very job we asked them to do in Iraq. Will they now be sacrificed for an ungrateful Iraq?
On Tuesday, five members of a tactical support team of Blackwater Worldwide security guards in Iraq made their first appearance in U.S. District Court on charges ranging from voluntary manslaughter to the use of automatic weapons. The "crime" was protecting State Department personnel under fire in a war zone and firing back.
On Sept. 16, 2007, 18 members of the "Raven 23" team came under fire while responding to an attack on another Blackwater group transporting a State Department official. It was a typical mission under their contract. This freed up military personnel for combat.
To aid their comrades, Raven 23 had to take the most direct route, which took them through Baghdad's Nisour Square on their way to the Green Zone. As radio logs show, they came under fire while trying to set up a temporary roadblock through which their comrades could pass quickly and safely. They returned fire and when the firefight ceased 14 Iraqis were dead and 20 wounded.
To call this action "voluntary manslaughter in the commission of a crime" is a tragic joke. They were protecting State Department personnel in a war zone, as they were contracted to do. They had no reason or motive to show up in downtown Baghdad and start randomly shooting civilians.
According to testimony by Gen. David Petraeus before the Senate on April 8, 2008, there were about 790 attacks on Coalition Forces and diplomatic personnel that week. That comes out to about 112 a day, or more than four an hour. Blackwater personnel knew each day someone would try to kill them and those they were to protect.
But the Iraqis wanted their pound of flesh, and a U.S. government reeling from anti-war criticism was willing to make sacrificial lambs of Raven 23. They're being tried under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA), which lets U.S. Courts punish Defense Department contractors overseas.
One small problem: Blackwater was under contract to the State Department, not the Defense Department.
Even though MEJA was amended to include actions "in support of" the DoD mission, Raven 23 was protecting State Department personnel. Simply, that wasn't the Defense Department's mission.
Amid the fog of war, security teams like Raven 23 have performed magnificently, freeing up U.S. troops to go after al-Qaida in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say the astounding success of the surge is due, in part, to the private security for U.S. diplomats Blackwater provided. It let the U.S. Marines focus on sending al-Qaida members, who were then making life in Iraq hell, to their just reward.
In a statement to Congress, then-Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte summed it up: "I personally was grateful for the presence of my Blackwater security detail, largely comprised of ex-Special Forces and other military, when I served as ambassador to Iraq. Their alert and controlled posture kept me safe, to get my job done."
Their critics forget another mission on March 31, 2004, when a convoy escorted by Blackwater personnel similarly came under fire during an ambush.
Four Blackwater employees were killed that day and their charred bodies hung from a Fallujah bridge. Gruesome photos of their mutilated bodies were printed in every major newspaper around the world and displayed on jihadist Web sites as a victory against the Great Satan.
Interestingly, their case has been assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo Urbina. He's the same jurist who ordered Uighur terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay to be released on American streets. His justice is not only blind, it is politically correct.
Like U.S. Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean, and the U.S. Marines charged with murder in a jihadist ambush in Haditha, Raven 23 is paying the price for political correctness.
They are being sacrificed to placate ungrateful and uncooperative allies and to please critics of the War in Iraq on the far left.
We think it's time to free the "Raven 23."
Justice: Once again, Americans asked to put their lives on the line go on trial. Their crime was doing the very job we asked them to do in Iraq. Will they now be sacrificed for an ungrateful Iraq?
On Tuesday, five members of a tactical support team of Blackwater Worldwide security guards in Iraq made their first appearance in U.S. District Court on charges ranging from voluntary manslaughter to the use of automatic weapons. The "crime" was protecting State Department personnel under fire in a war zone and firing back.
On Sept. 16, 2007, 18 members of the "Raven 23" team came under fire while responding to an attack on another Blackwater group transporting a State Department official. It was a typical mission under their contract. This freed up military personnel for combat.
To aid their comrades, Raven 23 had to take the most direct route, which took them through Baghdad's Nisour Square on their way to the Green Zone. As radio logs show, they came under fire while trying to set up a temporary roadblock through which their comrades could pass quickly and safely. They returned fire and when the firefight ceased 14 Iraqis were dead and 20 wounded.
To call this action "voluntary manslaughter in the commission of a crime" is a tragic joke. They were protecting State Department personnel in a war zone, as they were contracted to do. They had no reason or motive to show up in downtown Baghdad and start randomly shooting civilians.
According to testimony by Gen. David Petraeus before the Senate on April 8, 2008, there were about 790 attacks on Coalition Forces and diplomatic personnel that week. That comes out to about 112 a day, or more than four an hour. Blackwater personnel knew each day someone would try to kill them and those they were to protect.
But the Iraqis wanted their pound of flesh, and a U.S. government reeling from anti-war criticism was willing to make sacrificial lambs of Raven 23. They're being tried under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA), which lets U.S. Courts punish Defense Department contractors overseas.
One small problem: Blackwater was under contract to the State Department, not the Defense Department.
Even though MEJA was amended to include actions "in support of" the DoD mission, Raven 23 was protecting State Department personnel. Simply, that wasn't the Defense Department's mission.
Amid the fog of war, security teams like Raven 23 have performed magnificently, freeing up U.S. troops to go after al-Qaida in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say the astounding success of the surge is due, in part, to the private security for U.S. diplomats Blackwater provided. It let the U.S. Marines focus on sending al-Qaida members, who were then making life in Iraq hell, to their just reward.
In a statement to Congress, then-Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte summed it up: "I personally was grateful for the presence of my Blackwater security detail, largely comprised of ex-Special Forces and other military, when I served as ambassador to Iraq. Their alert and controlled posture kept me safe, to get my job done."
Their critics forget another mission on March 31, 2004, when a convoy escorted by Blackwater personnel similarly came under fire during an ambush.
Four Blackwater employees were killed that day and their charred bodies hung from a Fallujah bridge. Gruesome photos of their mutilated bodies were printed in every major newspaper around the world and displayed on jihadist Web sites as a victory against the Great Satan.
Interestingly, their case has been assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo Urbina. He's the same jurist who ordered Uighur terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay to be released on American streets. His justice is not only blind, it is politically correct.
Like U.S. Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean, and the U.S. Marines charged with murder in a jihadist ambush in Haditha, Raven 23 is paying the price for political correctness.
They are being sacrificed to placate ungrateful and uncooperative allies and to please critics of the War in Iraq on the far left.
We think it's time to free the "Raven 23."
Buy Michigan-Way Cool!
Some of you may know, others may not that my goal has been to sell my home and RV full time. Well the economic events of the last several years have made being a home seller darn right difficult!
However that is still the goal and I press on. As such, I still maintain a contact with the RV World through various Forums and with a subscription to TrailerLife Magazine which is where I ran across this small article of a unique RV product, "Way Cool Hauler" made by the Clawson, Michigan-based American Recreational Vehicle (ARV) company.
The "Way Cool Hauler" is just that, a toy hauler than can haul your boat, sea-doo (Of special interest to the many Great Lakes boaters) car, motorcycles, ATV, or just about any other grown-up toy.
It used to be that you had to decide between taking the trailer or the boat on your trip but no more. Through the technology invented by American RV, this one of a kind hauler has made it possible to pull two trailers down the road as if they were one!
Moreover, anyone familiar with the interiors of most toy haulers know they are spartan and less than comfy. Not so with the Way Cool Hauler. It's interior appointments are superior for comfortability
Additionally, American RV has other products in the works including a fifth wheel.
Kudos to American RV for the invention of completely new technology that enables boaters and campers the ability to do both, in comfort and style.
However that is still the goal and I press on. As such, I still maintain a contact with the RV World through various Forums and with a subscription to TrailerLife Magazine which is where I ran across this small article of a unique RV product, "Way Cool Hauler" made by the Clawson, Michigan-based American Recreational Vehicle (ARV) company.
The "Way Cool Hauler" is just that, a toy hauler than can haul your boat, sea-doo (Of special interest to the many Great Lakes boaters) car, motorcycles, ATV, or just about any other grown-up toy.
It used to be that you had to decide between taking the trailer or the boat on your trip but no more. Through the technology invented by American RV, this one of a kind hauler has made it possible to pull two trailers down the road as if they were one!
Moreover, anyone familiar with the interiors of most toy haulers know they are spartan and less than comfy. Not so with the Way Cool Hauler. It's interior appointments are superior for comfortability
Additionally, American RV has other products in the works including a fifth wheel.
Kudos to American RV for the invention of completely new technology that enables boaters and campers the ability to do both, in comfort and style.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Son of Hamas Leader Gives Glimpse Into Terror Organization
Fox News
Saturday , January 03, 2009
As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other world leaders try to broker a cease-fire agreement between Israel and Hamas, one former member of the militant Islamic organization said there will never be lasting peace between the two groups.
"There is no chance. Is there any chance for fire to co-exist with the water?" said Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of one of the group's founding members. Yousef added: "It's not about Israel, it's not about Hamas: it's about both ideologies."
Yousef, son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, one of the most influential leaders of the militant group, said the organization betrays the Palestinian cause and tortures its own members.
• Video: Click here for more on FOX News' special Escape from Hamas.
Hamas, formed in the late 1980's as an outgrowth of the Palestinian branch of the radical Muslim Brotherhood, is considered a terror organization by the U.S. government. Hamas seized power in the Gaza strip in 2007 in a violent coup against the more moderate Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas.
Yousef said he was indoctrinated at an early age to use violence to challenge Israeli control in the region. As a teenager he moved up within the organization and became the leader of the radical Islamic Youth Movement that fought Israeli tanks and troops in the streets, celebrated suicide bombings and recruited young men to the cause.
Yousef, 30, said he realized the true nature of Hamas and radical Islam during a stint in an Israeli prison. He renounced his Muslim faith, left his family behind in Ramallah and converted to Christianity.
"Islam is not the word of God," said Yousef. "If you want to be offended it's your problem. But you know something? Go study. Think for a second that I might be right. So wake up, look at your path, see where you're going. Are you really going to heaven with 72 virgins after you kill yourself and kill another 20 people?"
Yousef has sought asylum in the United States and now attends an evangelical Christian church in San Diego, Calif.
"The Hamas leadership, including my father, they're responsible; they're responsible for all the violence that happened from the organization. I know they describe it as reaction to Israeli aggression, but still, they are part of it and they had to make decisions in those operations against Israel (for) which there was the killing of many civilians."
Yousef talks more about his extraordinary story of faith, courage, violence and betrayal in a FOX News documentary, "Escape From Hamas," hosted by Bill Hemmer.
Escape from Hamas airs Saturday at 9 p.m., with repeats at 1 a.m. and 4 a.m. EST, and Sunday at 9 p.m., with repeats at 12 midnight, 2 a.m., EST.
• Click here to view video of Mosab Hassan Yousef speaking out.
Saturday , January 03, 2009
As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other world leaders try to broker a cease-fire agreement between Israel and Hamas, one former member of the militant Islamic organization said there will never be lasting peace between the two groups.
"There is no chance. Is there any chance for fire to co-exist with the water?" said Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of one of the group's founding members. Yousef added: "It's not about Israel, it's not about Hamas: it's about both ideologies."
Yousef, son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, one of the most influential leaders of the militant group, said the organization betrays the Palestinian cause and tortures its own members.
• Video: Click here for more on FOX News' special Escape from Hamas.
Hamas, formed in the late 1980's as an outgrowth of the Palestinian branch of the radical Muslim Brotherhood, is considered a terror organization by the U.S. government. Hamas seized power in the Gaza strip in 2007 in a violent coup against the more moderate Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas.
Yousef said he was indoctrinated at an early age to use violence to challenge Israeli control in the region. As a teenager he moved up within the organization and became the leader of the radical Islamic Youth Movement that fought Israeli tanks and troops in the streets, celebrated suicide bombings and recruited young men to the cause.
Yousef, 30, said he realized the true nature of Hamas and radical Islam during a stint in an Israeli prison. He renounced his Muslim faith, left his family behind in Ramallah and converted to Christianity.
"Islam is not the word of God," said Yousef. "If you want to be offended it's your problem. But you know something? Go study. Think for a second that I might be right. So wake up, look at your path, see where you're going. Are you really going to heaven with 72 virgins after you kill yourself and kill another 20 people?"
Yousef has sought asylum in the United States and now attends an evangelical Christian church in San Diego, Calif.
"The Hamas leadership, including my father, they're responsible; they're responsible for all the violence that happened from the organization. I know they describe it as reaction to Israeli aggression, but still, they are part of it and they had to make decisions in those operations against Israel (for) which there was the killing of many civilians."
Yousef talks more about his extraordinary story of faith, courage, violence and betrayal in a FOX News documentary, "Escape From Hamas," hosted by Bill Hemmer.
Escape from Hamas airs Saturday at 9 p.m., with repeats at 1 a.m. and 4 a.m. EST, and Sunday at 9 p.m., with repeats at 12 midnight, 2 a.m., EST.
• Click here to view video of Mosab Hassan Yousef speaking out.
Victory in Iraq and the Liberal Media Ignores It
Thanks to my friend Jean for the heads up
Victory in Iraq!
Nancy Morgan
Flopping Aces
What would happen if America won a war and no one reported it? Is it still news? What if a credible argument were made pretty much demolishing Darwin’s theory of evolution? If no media outlet conveyed this information to the American public, does that mean its not a valid argument? Does that mean its not news?
The liberal media would have you believe so. For decades, the old media, consisting of the big three networks and the newspapers of most major cities have had a stranglehold on what information gets disseminated to the public at large. The media elite have decided which issues qualify as news. Not surprisingly, the majority of the information that makes it to the airwaves or in print is overwhelmingly one-sided, reflecting a world-view steeped in progressive values and blatantly hostile to traditional values.
The old media elite, comprised of less than 1% of our population, has set the agenda and defined the issues in America for decades. More importantly, the old media has had the ability to relegate any facts that didn’t conform to their version of reality to the ash heap. If it doesn’t make the news, its not news.
By any measure, America and our allies have won the war in Iraq. Our mission has been accomplished. This is news, even though the media has failed to report it. Iraq’s economy is on track, thanks to much improved security and increased production of oil. Iraq’s fledgling parliament is operating. In other words, we won. The Iraqi people have won. Against tremendous odds.
Because American victory and military success don’t fit the media’s liberal version of America, most Americans remain unaware of the tremendous accomplishments that have been brought about, thanks to president Bush and our brave fighting men. Instead, their focus emcompasses only the price we paid, not the victory we achieved.
Ignoring inconvenient news and embarrassing facts is a tried and true tactic of the liberal media. A prime example is conservative author, Thomas Sowell. Sowell has written dozens of books dealing with race, culture, economics and other issues vital to America. More importantly, his facts have never been rebutted. Knowing there is no chance of disputing Sowell’s studies and conclusions, the media elite have chosen to ignore him. He is simply not a part of their carefully fashioned reality.
That is the fate of any author or pundit who dares to swim against the progressive tide. Can you spell censorship?
Ann Coulter is another example. In her book Godless, Ann makes a credible argument that the theory of Darwinian evolution is a bogus science. The media responded to this serious challenge to one of its core tenets by simply ignoring it, focusing instead on Ann’s cutting observation of four housewives from Jersey who lost their husbands in the 9/11 attack.
From their lofty position of moral self-righteousness, the media roundly condemned Coulter for her lack of sensitivity and empathy. Totally ignored in the ensuing media frenzy, was any mention, much less rebuttal, to Ann’s extremely credible argument demolishing Darwinism.
A majority of Americans are now somewhat aware of media bias. Increasingly, when reading a news story, Americans have the ability to recognize the obvious slant. This is all well and good. What is not well and good, is the fact that many of us are not made aware of all the news out there that is ignored.
Credible, relevant facts that are simply not reported. How many of you are aware that at the recent UN gathering on global warming, 650 renown scientists made a credible challenge to the UN’s conclusion that man-made global warming is a crisis situation requiring trillions of our tax dollars to remedy?
Once again, a credible challenge to a core tenet of progressivism was ignored rather than rebutted. This is media malfeasance.
Every American is entitled to enough information to make informed decisions. Instead, our media gives us only the information that fits the liberal template. This is manipulation of the worst sort. No matter how flat the pancake, there are always two sides. Our media has only been reporting one side, and then declaring grandly that the issue is settled.
The lack of reporting both sides of a story is having a pernicious effect on America, breeding anti-Americanism, victimology, feelings over facts and form over substance. The traditional values which made our country great, are being cast aside, along with Christianity, capitalism, families and other factors which have served to unite and define us as a nation.
The media would have us believe that inclusiveness, multiculturalism, equality and the environment are the most important issues facing our country today. And millions of Americans blindly accept their version of reality as truth. What they fail to report is the fact that each and every one of those policies has been an expensive, catastrophic failure, breeding social pathologies, hate and divisiveness. But, hey, its that thought that counts, right?
Just because the media says something is so, doesn’t make it so. And ignoring relevant facts doesn’t make them less relevant. All it means is that millions of Americans are still willing to let someone else do their thinking for them.
Nancy Morgan
Flopping Aces
What would happen if America won a war and no one reported it? Is it still news? What if a credible argument were made pretty much demolishing Darwin’s theory of evolution? If no media outlet conveyed this information to the American public, does that mean its not a valid argument? Does that mean its not news?
The liberal media would have you believe so. For decades, the old media, consisting of the big three networks and the newspapers of most major cities have had a stranglehold on what information gets disseminated to the public at large. The media elite have decided which issues qualify as news. Not surprisingly, the majority of the information that makes it to the airwaves or in print is overwhelmingly one-sided, reflecting a world-view steeped in progressive values and blatantly hostile to traditional values.
The old media elite, comprised of less than 1% of our population, has set the agenda and defined the issues in America for decades. More importantly, the old media has had the ability to relegate any facts that didn’t conform to their version of reality to the ash heap. If it doesn’t make the news, its not news.
By any measure, America and our allies have won the war in Iraq. Our mission has been accomplished. This is news, even though the media has failed to report it. Iraq’s economy is on track, thanks to much improved security and increased production of oil. Iraq’s fledgling parliament is operating. In other words, we won. The Iraqi people have won. Against tremendous odds.
Because American victory and military success don’t fit the media’s liberal version of America, most Americans remain unaware of the tremendous accomplishments that have been brought about, thanks to president Bush and our brave fighting men. Instead, their focus emcompasses only the price we paid, not the victory we achieved.
Ignoring inconvenient news and embarrassing facts is a tried and true tactic of the liberal media. A prime example is conservative author, Thomas Sowell. Sowell has written dozens of books dealing with race, culture, economics and other issues vital to America. More importantly, his facts have never been rebutted. Knowing there is no chance of disputing Sowell’s studies and conclusions, the media elite have chosen to ignore him. He is simply not a part of their carefully fashioned reality.
That is the fate of any author or pundit who dares to swim against the progressive tide. Can you spell censorship?
Ann Coulter is another example. In her book Godless, Ann makes a credible argument that the theory of Darwinian evolution is a bogus science. The media responded to this serious challenge to one of its core tenets by simply ignoring it, focusing instead on Ann’s cutting observation of four housewives from Jersey who lost their husbands in the 9/11 attack.
From their lofty position of moral self-righteousness, the media roundly condemned Coulter for her lack of sensitivity and empathy. Totally ignored in the ensuing media frenzy, was any mention, much less rebuttal, to Ann’s extremely credible argument demolishing Darwinism.
A majority of Americans are now somewhat aware of media bias. Increasingly, when reading a news story, Americans have the ability to recognize the obvious slant. This is all well and good. What is not well and good, is the fact that many of us are not made aware of all the news out there that is ignored.
Credible, relevant facts that are simply not reported. How many of you are aware that at the recent UN gathering on global warming, 650 renown scientists made a credible challenge to the UN’s conclusion that man-made global warming is a crisis situation requiring trillions of our tax dollars to remedy?
Once again, a credible challenge to a core tenet of progressivism was ignored rather than rebutted. This is media malfeasance.
Every American is entitled to enough information to make informed decisions. Instead, our media gives us only the information that fits the liberal template. This is manipulation of the worst sort. No matter how flat the pancake, there are always two sides. Our media has only been reporting one side, and then declaring grandly that the issue is settled.
The lack of reporting both sides of a story is having a pernicious effect on America, breeding anti-Americanism, victimology, feelings over facts and form over substance. The traditional values which made our country great, are being cast aside, along with Christianity, capitalism, families and other factors which have served to unite and define us as a nation.
The media would have us believe that inclusiveness, multiculturalism, equality and the environment are the most important issues facing our country today. And millions of Americans blindly accept their version of reality as truth. What they fail to report is the fact that each and every one of those policies has been an expensive, catastrophic failure, breeding social pathologies, hate and divisiveness. But, hey, its that thought that counts, right?
Just because the media says something is so, doesn’t make it so. And ignoring relevant facts doesn’t make them less relevant. All it means is that millions of Americans are still willing to let someone else do their thinking for them.
It is my understanding there is a victory rally being planned in D.C. on or about April 4, 2009...will keep you posted
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Nine Possibilities Heading Into 2009
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Time again to make a few guesses — 9 for '09 this time — on what the New Year may bring.
Last year's "8 for '08" were fairly accurate on six counts: the world would continue to dither as Iran's nuclear program advanced, the "consensus" on global warming would start to crumble, Cuba would sail into rough waters, Hugo Chavez would wear thinner, the Cold War would return and the economy would replace Iraq as the top news story.
We were too sanguine, however, about the economy's ability to avoid recession and a little early in predicting a reassessment of the Bush presidency. We were also disappointed a Nobel Prize didn't go to Japanese and American researchers who found a way to turn regular human skin cells into the equivalent of embryonic stem cells.
Now, this year's outlook:
1. A Less Safe Homeland?
One of the Bush Administration's key reasons for letting the National Security Agency listen to communications between the U.S. and al-Qaida contacts was that the special courts set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act often work too slowly to prevent terrorist operations. As current CIA director and former NSA director Gen. Michael Hayden put it, "it's a quicker trigger . . . it allows us to be as agile as operationally required to cover these targets."
Given this success, will Barack Obama as president follow the wishes of many of his fellow Democrats in Congress and dilute this indispensable tool that has helped keep us safe since the 9/11 attacks?
Will he end the CIA's so-called "black prisons" program, in which tough interrogations were used on key terrorist detainees in foreign locations, to extract information about future attack plans?
Will he take the heat from the left of his own party and boldly use his constitutional authority as president to go the extra mile in protecting the country, as George W. Bush has?
Will he view victory as imperative in both Iraq and Afghanistan, recognizing them as fronts in the war on terror?
We'll see. Promising to get Osama bin Laden sounds great in a campaign; governing requires more than catchphrases.
2. Stimulus Pushes Deficit To $1 Tril
Late in 2008, talk centered around a deal involving up to $800 billion in new spending, focused mainly on infrastructure and so-called Green Jobs. Tax cuts of $150 billion or more will focus on the middle class. Under Obama, those who no longer pay any taxes will surge from 44 million currently to more than 50 million, as those in the top 5% of incomes shoulder a greater share of the tax burden.
Obama' s stimulus, along with the nearly $2 trillion in outlays for 2008's financial and auto bailout, will push the deficit to more than $1 trillion — 7% of GDP, the biggest deficit since 1946.
The gush of red ink will alarm fiscal conservatives of both parties, who will have to grapple with soaring entitlement costs and a huge price tag for Obama's stimulus and infrastructure programs. The GOP will try to make it a wedge issue in congressional elections of 2010.
With Democrats firmly in control of both houses of Congress and the presidency, businesses may start feeling left out. A cut in corporate income taxes, at 35% now among the highest in the developed world, may make it through Congress, but only as part of a bigger deal that would raise taxes on those with incomes over $250,000.
And Democrats will fight Republican efforts to cut capital gains taxes, calling it a giveaway to the rich, even though such cuts have in the past led to strong economic and job growth.
3. China Falls Into Recession
After decades of stunning 10% GDP growth, China's economy stumbled late in 2008. It will continue to slow in 2009 — and possibly beyond. The main trigger for their slump: Soaring energy prices during early 2008, and a steep decline in U.S. demand for China's goods.
In 2007, China posted a $262 billion trade surplus, most of it rung up with the U.S., which ran a $709 billion trade deficit the same year. China has a pile of nearly $1.8 trillion in reserves, thanks mainly to its persistent trade surpluses. But that might shrink as its economy moves into a slowdown and China invests money overseas.
This will have a major impact. Already 20 million people a year leave farms and rural areas of China to find work and a better life in the big cities. If China grows by 5% or less over the next year or so, it won't create enough jobs and will face serious social pressures that could break into open violence. In 2007, China experienced at least 85,000 acts of rebellion, usually put down quickly and brutally.
Despite its rapid growth, China still only ranks No. 81 on the U.N.'s human development index, a gauge that combines health, education and income. Things are far worse for the more than half of China's 1.3 billion people who live in rural areas. If they tire of communist rule and endemic corruption, things could get very ugly.
Given China's dilemma, its best hope might lie with Wal-Mart.
4. Recovery In The U.S.?
Contrary to predictions of gloom and doom lasting into 2010, the U.S. economy will pull out of its recession as a massive home inventory overhang is worked off, oil prices stay low, trillions of dollars in stimulus and bailout funds are put to work and Fed interest-rate cuts kick in. Banks and finance companies will start lending again, and rising demand will push companies to hire. By the end of 2009, some people will be voicing concern about a new threat — inflation.
Cheaper energy helps. The weekly average cost of a gallon of gasoline plunged from $4.05 at its peak in mid-July to $1.59 in the last week of 2008. According to Nariman Behravish, chief economist of Global Insight, each 10-cent drop in gas prices is equal to a $12 billion tax cut. So the U.S. will get a "silent" tax cut of about $295 billion.
This means the bear market in stocks — which are one of the economy's best leading indicators — should be drawing to a close. This bear is now in its 15th month, and most don't last more than 15 or 16. Nine to 10 is more like it.
Most economists look for a 1% drop in GDP in 2009 as unemployment heads for 8%. But a strong second-half rebound means the U.S. economy might grow in 2009 — and once again pull the rest of the world out of recession with it.
5. Energy Fever, Climate Change Cool Off
The cooling trend that began in 1998 will continue as solar activity remains dormant. Last year was the coolest year in a decade.
As the evidence grows, more scientists will join the list of climate "deniers," as protests arise in Europe and the U.S. over expensive alternate-energy schemes that slow global economic recovery.
But as long as crude remains below $70 a barrel — the make-or-break level for many energy projects and alternative energy — Congress will continue to drag its feet on drilling for more oil and gas in the U.S. Obama might try to introduce a cap-and-trade system passed by Congress. If he can't, he'll let the Environmental Protection Agency limit companies' output of carbon-based emissions.
Meanwhile, congressional Republicans, many of whom are skeptical of extreme claims made by global warming advocates, may cut a deal with Democrats that would raise taxes on all forms of carbon-based energy in exchange for deep cuts in income and payroll taxes.
World demand for oil will fall, as it did in 2008. Global economic growth of 4.6% a year from 2003 to 2007 was the fastest in decades, pushing up energy use. But the boom's over. Petrobullies like Russia's Putin, Venezuela's Chavez and Iran's Ahmadinejad will find their ambitions curbed as oil earnings plunge.
6. Big Labor Fights For Relevance
Organized labor made a big deal about its $400 million in campaign spending to win the election for Democrats in 2008. Elated by its success, it vowed to put its agenda front and center.
But as 2009 rolls in, all that cash is starting to look less like power projection and more like a last-gasp bid to go for broke.
The big problem is that in a weak economy, the union agenda is incompatible with economic growth. Businesses can't grow and create jobs in an atmosphere where workers are forced into unions and free trade is restricted. Given the choice of a recovering economy or a satisfied union base, Obama is likely to tilt toward saving the economy, if only for the sake of his own political viability.
That said, after spending that much money, unions want to show they still matter after watching their share of the U.S. work force shrink from 31.4% in 1960 to less than 12% today.
Two possibilities stand out in 2009: One is to fight head-on for legislation like "card-check," a change to the National Labor Relations Act that would eliminate secret ballots to make organizing new unions easier. But businesses will strongly fight "card check."
On trade, unions will oppose pending free-trade pacts with Colombia, South Korea and Panama and make new demands for protection against China. If Obama agrees to this, exports, a key spur to U.S. growth, will suffer.
7. Obama Seeks Health Care Reform
Even health care experts sympathetic to Obama's goals argue the president-elect understates his plan's costs. Obama's plan of near universal coverage means "a $100 billion infusion of new health care spending" that "would actually increase the rate of health care inflation and ultimately create an imperative for more draconian government intervention in the health care markets," says Health Policy and Strategy Associates President Robert Laszewski.
Featuring Medicaid and SCHIP expansions and huge new burdens for businesses, ObamaCare's massive new spending will be a tough political sell, especially with taxpayers already footing the bill for bailouts of banks and the auto sector, and millions of Americans losing their jobs — which is where Tom Daschle comes in. The HHS secretary-designate was Democratic leader in the U.S. Senate.
Daschle knows plenty of senators on both sides of the aisle personally and appears regularly around the country on a health care "listening tour," hoping to gather a mandate for an entirely new system.
If, as expected, President Obama insists that a big government health care reform is imperative for economic recovery, this shrewd legislative warrior will be his general, in charge of imposing the kind of socialized medicine found in France, Britain and Canada, where waiting lists and substandard quality are the norm.
8. India Gets Assertive
India's citizens have gained a lot from their opening to the world in 1991 and they aren't about to give it up. But threats remain from the global economic downturn and terror attacks out of Pakistan.
Elections by May could bring the return of the BJP Hindu nationalists to government. The ruling Congress Party's cautious response to November's terror attack in Mumbai and the sharp economic downturn have left voters unhappy. India's 9%-plus GDP growth rate is expected to slip to 6.5% in 2009. Still, India's 1 billion-plus people have tasted prosperity and want to keep it going.
It all points to a need for assertiveness, no matter who wins. Fiscal stimulus is on the plate, and possibly more defense spending. The government may tighten its alliance with the U.S. to modernize its military. Though Pakistan is the big problem, India is unlikely to risk nuclear warfare. But it may assert itself in forums like the U.N.
As a large market, India will forge closer trade ties with markets like the U.S., Japan, and EU. India will help fight pirates in the Indian Ocean because it's vulnerable to them blocking key sea lanes.
India has one thing going for it: optimism. Its public still believes in markets and the country's future.
9. Israel Gets Rid Of Iran's Nuclear Threat
Will Israel use its altercation with the Iranian-backed Hamas as a stepping stone toward a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities? The signs are that an Obama Administration, committed to "tough diplomacy," will be less likely to let Israel take matters into its own hands and strike Tehran as it did Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981.
Lack of U.S. support would make such airstrikes more difficult, and leave Israel even more vulnerable politically on the world stage. With the Jewish state just this week sending warplanes to annihilate Hamas terrorists, defying heavy international pressure for a cease-fire, it seems clear Israel won't hesitate to defend itself.
Should Bibi Netanyahu and the Likud Party return to power in coming elections, Hamas — and its patron, Iran — might be in bigger trouble. Israel might be tempted to go for broke, taking out Iran's burgeoning nuclear threat rather than letting Tel Aviv go up in a mushroom cloud.
Time again to make a few guesses — 9 for '09 this time — on what the New Year may bring.
Last year's "8 for '08" were fairly accurate on six counts: the world would continue to dither as Iran's nuclear program advanced, the "consensus" on global warming would start to crumble, Cuba would sail into rough waters, Hugo Chavez would wear thinner, the Cold War would return and the economy would replace Iraq as the top news story.
We were too sanguine, however, about the economy's ability to avoid recession and a little early in predicting a reassessment of the Bush presidency. We were also disappointed a Nobel Prize didn't go to Japanese and American researchers who found a way to turn regular human skin cells into the equivalent of embryonic stem cells.
Now, this year's outlook:
1. A Less Safe Homeland?
One of the Bush Administration's key reasons for letting the National Security Agency listen to communications between the U.S. and al-Qaida contacts was that the special courts set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act often work too slowly to prevent terrorist operations. As current CIA director and former NSA director Gen. Michael Hayden put it, "it's a quicker trigger . . . it allows us to be as agile as operationally required to cover these targets."
Given this success, will Barack Obama as president follow the wishes of many of his fellow Democrats in Congress and dilute this indispensable tool that has helped keep us safe since the 9/11 attacks?
Will he end the CIA's so-called "black prisons" program, in which tough interrogations were used on key terrorist detainees in foreign locations, to extract information about future attack plans?
Will he take the heat from the left of his own party and boldly use his constitutional authority as president to go the extra mile in protecting the country, as George W. Bush has?
Will he view victory as imperative in both Iraq and Afghanistan, recognizing them as fronts in the war on terror?
We'll see. Promising to get Osama bin Laden sounds great in a campaign; governing requires more than catchphrases.
2. Stimulus Pushes Deficit To $1 Tril
Late in 2008, talk centered around a deal involving up to $800 billion in new spending, focused mainly on infrastructure and so-called Green Jobs. Tax cuts of $150 billion or more will focus on the middle class. Under Obama, those who no longer pay any taxes will surge from 44 million currently to more than 50 million, as those in the top 5% of incomes shoulder a greater share of the tax burden.
Obama' s stimulus, along with the nearly $2 trillion in outlays for 2008's financial and auto bailout, will push the deficit to more than $1 trillion — 7% of GDP, the biggest deficit since 1946.
The gush of red ink will alarm fiscal conservatives of both parties, who will have to grapple with soaring entitlement costs and a huge price tag for Obama's stimulus and infrastructure programs. The GOP will try to make it a wedge issue in congressional elections of 2010.
With Democrats firmly in control of both houses of Congress and the presidency, businesses may start feeling left out. A cut in corporate income taxes, at 35% now among the highest in the developed world, may make it through Congress, but only as part of a bigger deal that would raise taxes on those with incomes over $250,000.
And Democrats will fight Republican efforts to cut capital gains taxes, calling it a giveaway to the rich, even though such cuts have in the past led to strong economic and job growth.
3. China Falls Into Recession
After decades of stunning 10% GDP growth, China's economy stumbled late in 2008. It will continue to slow in 2009 — and possibly beyond. The main trigger for their slump: Soaring energy prices during early 2008, and a steep decline in U.S. demand for China's goods.
In 2007, China posted a $262 billion trade surplus, most of it rung up with the U.S., which ran a $709 billion trade deficit the same year. China has a pile of nearly $1.8 trillion in reserves, thanks mainly to its persistent trade surpluses. But that might shrink as its economy moves into a slowdown and China invests money overseas.
This will have a major impact. Already 20 million people a year leave farms and rural areas of China to find work and a better life in the big cities. If China grows by 5% or less over the next year or so, it won't create enough jobs and will face serious social pressures that could break into open violence. In 2007, China experienced at least 85,000 acts of rebellion, usually put down quickly and brutally.
Despite its rapid growth, China still only ranks No. 81 on the U.N.'s human development index, a gauge that combines health, education and income. Things are far worse for the more than half of China's 1.3 billion people who live in rural areas. If they tire of communist rule and endemic corruption, things could get very ugly.
Given China's dilemma, its best hope might lie with Wal-Mart.
4. Recovery In The U.S.?
Contrary to predictions of gloom and doom lasting into 2010, the U.S. economy will pull out of its recession as a massive home inventory overhang is worked off, oil prices stay low, trillions of dollars in stimulus and bailout funds are put to work and Fed interest-rate cuts kick in. Banks and finance companies will start lending again, and rising demand will push companies to hire. By the end of 2009, some people will be voicing concern about a new threat — inflation.
Cheaper energy helps. The weekly average cost of a gallon of gasoline plunged from $4.05 at its peak in mid-July to $1.59 in the last week of 2008. According to Nariman Behravish, chief economist of Global Insight, each 10-cent drop in gas prices is equal to a $12 billion tax cut. So the U.S. will get a "silent" tax cut of about $295 billion.
This means the bear market in stocks — which are one of the economy's best leading indicators — should be drawing to a close. This bear is now in its 15th month, and most don't last more than 15 or 16. Nine to 10 is more like it.
Most economists look for a 1% drop in GDP in 2009 as unemployment heads for 8%. But a strong second-half rebound means the U.S. economy might grow in 2009 — and once again pull the rest of the world out of recession with it.
5. Energy Fever, Climate Change Cool Off
The cooling trend that began in 1998 will continue as solar activity remains dormant. Last year was the coolest year in a decade.
As the evidence grows, more scientists will join the list of climate "deniers," as protests arise in Europe and the U.S. over expensive alternate-energy schemes that slow global economic recovery.
But as long as crude remains below $70 a barrel — the make-or-break level for many energy projects and alternative energy — Congress will continue to drag its feet on drilling for more oil and gas in the U.S. Obama might try to introduce a cap-and-trade system passed by Congress. If he can't, he'll let the Environmental Protection Agency limit companies' output of carbon-based emissions.
Meanwhile, congressional Republicans, many of whom are skeptical of extreme claims made by global warming advocates, may cut a deal with Democrats that would raise taxes on all forms of carbon-based energy in exchange for deep cuts in income and payroll taxes.
World demand for oil will fall, as it did in 2008. Global economic growth of 4.6% a year from 2003 to 2007 was the fastest in decades, pushing up energy use. But the boom's over. Petrobullies like Russia's Putin, Venezuela's Chavez and Iran's Ahmadinejad will find their ambitions curbed as oil earnings plunge.
6. Big Labor Fights For Relevance
Organized labor made a big deal about its $400 million in campaign spending to win the election for Democrats in 2008. Elated by its success, it vowed to put its agenda front and center.
But as 2009 rolls in, all that cash is starting to look less like power projection and more like a last-gasp bid to go for broke.
The big problem is that in a weak economy, the union agenda is incompatible with economic growth. Businesses can't grow and create jobs in an atmosphere where workers are forced into unions and free trade is restricted. Given the choice of a recovering economy or a satisfied union base, Obama is likely to tilt toward saving the economy, if only for the sake of his own political viability.
That said, after spending that much money, unions want to show they still matter after watching their share of the U.S. work force shrink from 31.4% in 1960 to less than 12% today.
Two possibilities stand out in 2009: One is to fight head-on for legislation like "card-check," a change to the National Labor Relations Act that would eliminate secret ballots to make organizing new unions easier. But businesses will strongly fight "card check."
On trade, unions will oppose pending free-trade pacts with Colombia, South Korea and Panama and make new demands for protection against China. If Obama agrees to this, exports, a key spur to U.S. growth, will suffer.
7. Obama Seeks Health Care Reform
Even health care experts sympathetic to Obama's goals argue the president-elect understates his plan's costs. Obama's plan of near universal coverage means "a $100 billion infusion of new health care spending" that "would actually increase the rate of health care inflation and ultimately create an imperative for more draconian government intervention in the health care markets," says Health Policy and Strategy Associates President Robert Laszewski.
Featuring Medicaid and SCHIP expansions and huge new burdens for businesses, ObamaCare's massive new spending will be a tough political sell, especially with taxpayers already footing the bill for bailouts of banks and the auto sector, and millions of Americans losing their jobs — which is where Tom Daschle comes in. The HHS secretary-designate was Democratic leader in the U.S. Senate.
Daschle knows plenty of senators on both sides of the aisle personally and appears regularly around the country on a health care "listening tour," hoping to gather a mandate for an entirely new system.
If, as expected, President Obama insists that a big government health care reform is imperative for economic recovery, this shrewd legislative warrior will be his general, in charge of imposing the kind of socialized medicine found in France, Britain and Canada, where waiting lists and substandard quality are the norm.
8. India Gets Assertive
India's citizens have gained a lot from their opening to the world in 1991 and they aren't about to give it up. But threats remain from the global economic downturn and terror attacks out of Pakistan.
Elections by May could bring the return of the BJP Hindu nationalists to government. The ruling Congress Party's cautious response to November's terror attack in Mumbai and the sharp economic downturn have left voters unhappy. India's 9%-plus GDP growth rate is expected to slip to 6.5% in 2009. Still, India's 1 billion-plus people have tasted prosperity and want to keep it going.
It all points to a need for assertiveness, no matter who wins. Fiscal stimulus is on the plate, and possibly more defense spending. The government may tighten its alliance with the U.S. to modernize its military. Though Pakistan is the big problem, India is unlikely to risk nuclear warfare. But it may assert itself in forums like the U.N.
As a large market, India will forge closer trade ties with markets like the U.S., Japan, and EU. India will help fight pirates in the Indian Ocean because it's vulnerable to them blocking key sea lanes.
India has one thing going for it: optimism. Its public still believes in markets and the country's future.
9. Israel Gets Rid Of Iran's Nuclear Threat
Will Israel use its altercation with the Iranian-backed Hamas as a stepping stone toward a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities? The signs are that an Obama Administration, committed to "tough diplomacy," will be less likely to let Israel take matters into its own hands and strike Tehran as it did Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981.
Lack of U.S. support would make such airstrikes more difficult, and leave Israel even more vulnerable politically on the world stage. With the Jewish state just this week sending warplanes to annihilate Hamas terrorists, defying heavy international pressure for a cease-fire, it seems clear Israel won't hesitate to defend itself.
Should Bibi Netanyahu and the Likud Party return to power in coming elections, Hamas — and its patron, Iran — might be in bigger trouble. Israel might be tempted to go for broke, taking out Iran's burgeoning nuclear threat rather than letting Tel Aviv go up in a mushroom cloud.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Happy New Year!
The best laid plans of mice and men...I fully intended to blog about my trip to Texas however for "whatever" reason known to only God and computer tech people my wireless was not able to connect to my friend's wireless.
Oh I know I could have used theirs but the set up just wasn't right and well I was on vacation & fun got in the way.
And now its New Years Eve.
And I really do love the celebration of a new year. New beginnings, new hope for the coming year. Too many including myself, 2008 was a difficult year. But the new year looms ahead with possibilities and hope. And I am believing that 2009 is going to be my year!
2009 is the year I will sell my house
2009 is the year I get on the "open road" full time RVing, exploring the most beautiful country in the world.
2009 is the year that these goals, dreams will come true!
2009 is going to be your year too!
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
"Auld Lang Syne" is a Scottish poem written by Robert Burns in 1788 and set to the tune of a traditional folk song (Roud # 6294). It is well known in many English-speaking countries and is often sung to celebrate the start of the new year at the stroke of midnight on New Year's Day.
The song's (Scots) title may be translated into English literally as "old long since", or more idiomatically, "long long ago"[1] or "days gone by".
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
We twa hae run aboot the braes
Oh I know I could have used theirs but the set up just wasn't right and well I was on vacation & fun got in the way.
And now its New Years Eve.
And I really do love the celebration of a new year. New beginnings, new hope for the coming year. Too many including myself, 2008 was a difficult year. But the new year looms ahead with possibilities and hope. And I am believing that 2009 is going to be my year!
2009 is the year I will sell my house
2009 is the year I get on the "open road" full time RVing, exploring the most beautiful country in the world.
2009 is the year that these goals, dreams will come true!
2009 is going to be your year too!
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
"Auld Lang Syne" is a Scottish poem written by Robert Burns in 1788 and set to the tune of a traditional folk song (Roud # 6294). It is well known in many English-speaking countries and is often sung to celebrate the start of the new year at the stroke of midnight on New Year's Day.
The song's (Scots) title may be translated into English literally as "old long since", or more idiomatically, "long long ago"[1] or "days gone by".
Auld Lang Syne
Robert Burns
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
and never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot
and days of auld lang syne?
For auld lang syne, my dear, For auld lang syne,
For auld lang syne, my dear, For auld lang syne,
We'll take a cup o' kindness yet For auld lang syne
We twa hae run aboot the braes
And pou'd the gowans fine; we've wander'd mony
a weary footSin' auld lang syne
We two hae paidled i' the burn,Frae mornin' sun till dine;
We two hae paidled i' the burn,Frae mornin' sun till dine;
But seas between us braid hae roar'd Sin' auld lang syne
And here's a hand, my trusty friend,
And here's a hand, my trusty friend,
And gie's a hand o' thine;
We'll take a cup o' kindness yet For auld lang syne
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
and never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot
and days of auld lang syne?
For auld lang syne, my dear, For auld lang syne,
For auld lang syne, my dear, For auld lang syne,
We'll take a cup o' kindness yet For auld lang syne
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Leaving on a Jet Plane..
Tomorrow heading for Christmas in Texas, McKinney to be exact. Just north of Plano that is north of Dallas. Friends of mine Stefany, hubby Matt and their three beautiful kids, Noelle, Grant and Loren moved from Kalamazoo area to Texas just a couple of months ago. New job for hubby, new house, new life! Exciting! But still missing family and friends this 1st Christmas so DaDuh me to the rescue! And I am really looking forward to a much needed vacation and 1st trip ever to the great state of Texas!
So check back, planning on doing some "live blogging" about my adventures in Texas.
Merry Christmas and YEEHAW!
So check back, planning on doing some "live blogging" about my adventures in Texas.
Merry Christmas and YEEHAW!
Friday, December 19, 2008
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Supporting Our Troops
At this holy time of year, it seems right to pause and remember those who sacrificed for religious liberty in America...AS WE FREELY CELEBRATE OUR SAVIOR'S BIRTHWith the help of a Twitter friend, IndyEnigma I have complied a list of organizations that support our troops and their families in various ways. Supporting our troops isn't just something to do for Christmas but something we can do for them and their families year round.
If you know of any worthwhile organizations I do not have listed please add via comments.
Merry Christmas
Be a Secret Santa to Children of Our Wounded Troops
Join "Operation Christmas
Calls for the Troops" Share Christmas — Help Our Troops Call Their Loved Ones This Holiday
Send a free printed postcard to our overseas troops
Operation Family Fund To assist the injured and families of the those who have been injured or killed as a part of the Global War on Terrorism, whether domestic or abroad, military or civilian, with financial grants for transitioning to their new circumstances and achieving financial self-sufficiency.
Soldiers Angels Soldiers' Angels specialize in filling specific service member and family needs. You can get involved in sending handmade blankets to the wounded, supporting our military chaplains, helping soldiers distribute toys and clothing to children in Iraq and Afghanistan, and much, much more!
Coffee and Cookies for the Troops You can help make the daily routine of our troops serving in Afghanistan and Iraq a little more bearable.
We've heard from countless members of the Armed Forces serving in the Middle East that one precious resource in short supply is quality coffee. That's why Move America Forward wanted to send only the BEST GOURMET Coffee to the troops. What better to enjoy with a cup of exquisite coffee but with name brand Oreo Cookies? Also included in MAF care packages are special treats from Jelly Belly jelly beans, part of our Candy Diplomacy Program.
Homes for Our Troops is a non-partisan, non-profit 501 (c)(3)organization that provides specially adapted homes for our severely injured service members. Through our growing network of monetary contributions, donations from building contractors, suppliers, corporate supporters and local volunteers, we are able to provide our assistance at no cost to the veterans that we serve.
"The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned.You have enlarged the nation
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on His shoulders."
Isaiah 9:2-3, 6 (NIV)
..."Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty
"Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof," Leviticus 25:10
Inscribed on the Liberty Bell
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Revisionist History from Levin and Stabenow
Detroit Did All That?
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Economy: Taxpayers are being told that the middle class itself may be in peril if they don't bail out the auto industry. Look behind that tall claim and you'll find a liberal creation myth.
As the fate of General Motors, Chrysler and maybe Ford continues to hang in the balance, we hear increasingly dire talk about what might ensue if any of these companies has to seek protection under bankruptcy laws.
These companies would fold, millions of jobs would be lost, and America would lose a national-security linchpin. To top it all off, the survival of the middle class may be at stake, or so we're told.
Michigan's senior senator, Carl Levin, acknowledged on National Public Radio earlier this month that taxpayers may be reluctant to bail out Detroit. But he added: "I think everybody wants the middle class to survive, and the manufacturing centers of this country — wherever they are — have been a great source of the middle class to this country."
Fellow Senate Michigander Debbie Stabenow has said: "To fundamentally have a middle class in this country, we need to support the people who started the middle class: the automakers."
Both Levin and Stabenow may be taking a cue from UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, who has told union delegates that "the real issue is the backbone of America — an industry that does more for the economy than any other industry and, quite frankly, made the middle class what it is today."
Did Detroit really do all that? If so, then America had no middle class to speak of until the early 20th century.
Most historians would find that idea strange, but it springs from a view of history that seems widely held in the labor movement and the Democratic Party. This is the theory that unions essentially created the modern middle class in the mid-20th century by boosting the wages and benefits of millions of manufacturing workers.
You might call this the liberals' Middle Class Creation Myth. The auto industry is central to that tale not because of its bosses but because of the UAW, whose lavish contracts set the standard for the rest of organized labor. So all the talk today about saving the auto industry in order to save the middle class is really about preserving those union contracts.
The Big Three could survive and maybe even thrive by cutting their wage and benefit costs to the levels enjoyed by Toyota, Honda and other foreign companies that make cars in the U.S. Bankruptcy protection (or a similar government-supervised process) would release Detroit from its current UAW contracts and enable it to speed up the process, now far too slow, of closing that labor-cost gap.
We doubt if that is what Stabenow and Levin want. It's certainly not what Gettelfinger would want. But it's what Detroit needs to become competitive again. It's also what autoworkers need if they want to keep their jobs for the long term.
History teaches a couple of lessons here. One is that, as the labor movement boasts, wages and benefits did indeed rise in the late 1940s and 1950s, when private-sector unions were at their maximum strength.
But another lesson is that American industry had unusual advantages during that time, when Europe and Japan were still rebuilding and offered no serious competition. It was a phase that could not last, and unions could not stem the drain of jobs out of the U.S. manufacturing sector.
No fact makes this point better than the UAW's own dramatic shrinkage, from 1.5 million members in 1979 to fewer than half a million today. Such is the downside to a strategy of raising wages through collective muscle. When labor gets priced to a point where a machine can do a job more cheaply than a worker, the worker is out of a job.
So there has to be a better way to build an enduring middle class. In fact, there is. Long before the UAW was founded or the first car rolled off the assembly line, Americans were working their way into the middle class through education and individual initiative. Many have made that move up by way of Detroit. But Detroit is only one of myriad routes that the enterprising can choose.
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Economy: Taxpayers are being told that the middle class itself may be in peril if they don't bail out the auto industry. Look behind that tall claim and you'll find a liberal creation myth.
As the fate of General Motors, Chrysler and maybe Ford continues to hang in the balance, we hear increasingly dire talk about what might ensue if any of these companies has to seek protection under bankruptcy laws.
These companies would fold, millions of jobs would be lost, and America would lose a national-security linchpin. To top it all off, the survival of the middle class may be at stake, or so we're told.
Michigan's senior senator, Carl Levin, acknowledged on National Public Radio earlier this month that taxpayers may be reluctant to bail out Detroit. But he added: "I think everybody wants the middle class to survive, and the manufacturing centers of this country — wherever they are — have been a great source of the middle class to this country."
Fellow Senate Michigander Debbie Stabenow has said: "To fundamentally have a middle class in this country, we need to support the people who started the middle class: the automakers."Both Levin and Stabenow may be taking a cue from UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, who has told union delegates that "the real issue is the backbone of America — an industry that does more for the economy than any other industry and, quite frankly, made the middle class what it is today."
Did Detroit really do all that? If so, then America had no middle class to speak of until the early 20th century.
Most historians would find that idea strange, but it springs from a view of history that seems widely held in the labor movement and the Democratic Party. This is the theory that unions essentially created the modern middle class in the mid-20th century by boosting the wages and benefits of millions of manufacturing workers.
You might call this the liberals' Middle Class Creation Myth. The auto industry is central to that tale not because of its bosses but because of the UAW, whose lavish contracts set the standard for the rest of organized labor. So all the talk today about saving the auto industry in order to save the middle class is really about preserving those union contracts.
The Big Three could survive and maybe even thrive by cutting their wage and benefit costs to the levels enjoyed by Toyota, Honda and other foreign companies that make cars in the U.S. Bankruptcy protection (or a similar government-supervised process) would release Detroit from its current UAW contracts and enable it to speed up the process, now far too slow, of closing that labor-cost gap.
We doubt if that is what Stabenow and Levin want. It's certainly not what Gettelfinger would want. But it's what Detroit needs to become competitive again. It's also what autoworkers need if they want to keep their jobs for the long term.
History teaches a couple of lessons here. One is that, as the labor movement boasts, wages and benefits did indeed rise in the late 1940s and 1950s, when private-sector unions were at their maximum strength.
But another lesson is that American industry had unusual advantages during that time, when Europe and Japan were still rebuilding and offered no serious competition. It was a phase that could not last, and unions could not stem the drain of jobs out of the U.S. manufacturing sector.
No fact makes this point better than the UAW's own dramatic shrinkage, from 1.5 million members in 1979 to fewer than half a million today. Such is the downside to a strategy of raising wages through collective muscle. When labor gets priced to a point where a machine can do a job more cheaply than a worker, the worker is out of a job.
So there has to be a better way to build an enduring middle class. In fact, there is. Long before the UAW was founded or the first car rolled off the assembly line, Americans were working their way into the middle class through education and individual initiative. Many have made that move up by way of Detroit. But Detroit is only one of myriad routes that the enterprising can choose.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Gov. Palin's Home Church Damaged by Arson
Frontiersman
By RACHEL D'ORO
Dec 13, 8:25 PM EST
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) -- Gov. Sarah Palin's home church was badly damaged by arson, leading the governor to apologize if the fire was connected to "undeserved negative attention" from her failed campaign as the Republican vice presidential nominee. ...
...Early in Palin's campaign, the church was criticized for promoting in a Sunday bulletin a Focus on the Family "Love Won Out Conference" in Anchorage.
The conference promised to "help men and women dissatisfied with living homosexually understand that same-sex attractions can be overcome."
Does the reach of radical homosexuals enraged by the passage of *Prop 8 reach all the way to Alaska?
*Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition that changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman Wikipedia
By RACHEL D'ORO
Dec 13, 8:25 PM EST
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) -- Gov. Sarah Palin's home church was badly damaged by arson, leading the governor to apologize if the fire was connected to "undeserved negative attention" from her failed campaign as the Republican vice presidential nominee. ...
...Early in Palin's campaign, the church was criticized for promoting in a Sunday bulletin a Focus on the Family "Love Won Out Conference" in Anchorage.
The conference promised to "help men and women dissatisfied with living homosexually understand that same-sex attractions can be overcome."
Does the reach of radical homosexuals enraged by the passage of *Prop 8 reach all the way to Alaska?
*Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition that changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman Wikipedia
Sarah's home church has suffered $1 million in damage. Those wishing to make a donation to help rebuilt the church: 2. Then mail your check to: Address courtesy of Team Sarah
1. Please make your check payable to:
Wasilla Bible Church
Wasilla Bible Church
1651 W. Nicola Avenue
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
Friday, December 12, 2008
GM Idles Local Michigan Plants
Both Lansing Grand River Assembly and Lansing Delta Assembly plants will stop their production lines for the entire month of January.General Motors Corp. says it is part of a plan to cut another 250,000 vehicles from its first-quarter production schedule by temporarily closing 21 factories across North America.Friday's announcement expands previously announced closings at the local plants.GM and nearly all automakers who sell in the U.S. are mired in the worst sales slump in 26 years.
Employees at more than a dozen local part suppliers -- companies that directly supply the Lansing Grand River and Delta Township plants will be effected also.
Companies like Alliance Interiors, Bridgewater Interiors, Leer,and trucking company Comprehensive Logistics will see cutbacks.WILX-TV
Lansing Grand River Assembly produces Cadillac CTS, Cadillac SRX, STS, CTS-V and STS-V.
LGR has approximately 1,427 Hourly and 210 Salary employees.
LGR opened in 2001 and is considered "the gold standard for GM manufacturing — highly flexible, lean employment levels, profitable and able to crank out models with few defects. It is GM’s best hope of competing head-to-head with efficient U.S. manufacturing plants run by Toyota, Nissan, Honda and other foreign rivals." The Detroit News
Lansing Delta Assembly produces GMC Acadia, Saturn Outlook and the Buick Enclave.
LDA has approximately 3,396 Hourly and 261 Salary employees.
LDA opened in 2006 and "The state-of-the-art facility...collects rainwater on its roof and uses it to flush toilets--one of the environmentally friendly practices that has made it the only auto plant in the world to earn gold-level certification with the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green building rating system."InformationWeek
Lansing Grand River Assembly and Lansing Delta Assembly plants are the only new production plants GM has built in North America since the Saturn Plant in Spring Hill,Tennessee in 1991.
On a personal note I worked as an hourly Administrative Assistant for Body, Paint and General Assembly at Lansing Grand River shortly before I retired this year. And I am of course saddened by the news for the GM family and my community.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Cash-Strapped Electric Car Companies Seeking Federal Funds Too
Wall Street Journal
The heads of the struggling Detroit auto makers aren't the only car makers looking for help from Washington. The electric vehicle industry has its hands out, too.
If anything, representatives of the electric and electrified vehicle business jumped ahead of the "legacy" auto industry in the transportation bailout queue that formed in the nation's capital last week. A conference sponsored by the Electric Drive Transportation Association attracted a crowd of electric vehicle manufacturers and their boosters to Washington's convention center during the first half of the week.
Officials from the Department of Energy on Monday presented tips to attendees on how electric vehicle companies could apply for federal loans. The CEOs of the legacy car industry – General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC -- didn't get to town with their begging bowls until Thursday.
Joseph White talks with Brian Wynne, president of the Electric Drive Transportation Association, about government support, research and development and the cost of driving electric vehicles. (Dec. 7)
The electric-vehicle industry positions itself as the future of personal transportation. President-elect Barack Obama is now the industry's highest ranking advocate. He's said he wants to see one million plug-in vehicles by 2015, as part of his broader goal to end U.S. dependence on Mideast oil.
But right now, the electric-vehicle community has a lot of the same problems as the legacy car business, and a few more besides. Brian Wynne, the head of the EDTA, says manufacturers in his group need the government's help now.
"We have a gap," he says. "We need to get over this gap."
The credit crunch and the economic slump are slamming the crop of electric-vehicle companies that sprung up in recent years, fueled in part by Silicon Valley venture-capital money.
FiskerTesla Motors LLC, once the darling of the green car movement, is now scrambling to stay afloat and is asking for a $400 million loan from the same $25 billion federal Energy Department program that Detroit's car makers are looking to tap in their own fight for survival.
Tesla is now taking some flak for seeking handouts from taxpayers, most of whom could never afford its current product, a racy electric sports car that starts at more than $100,000. Detroit's chiefs might say: Welcome to our world.
The electric-vehicle industry's need for government assistance doesn't stop with subsidized loans.
Mr. Wynne says the government's existing tax credits for purchases of electrified vehicles – meaning all-electric and gas-electric hybrids – should be expanded. Currently the credits, which range from $2,500 for a plug-in hybrid vehicle with a four kilowatt per hour battery pack to as much as $7,500 for an electric vehicle weighing under 10,000 pounds. (There are larger credits up to $15,000 for bigger, commercial electric and hybrid vehicles.) But these credits start to fade away once 250,000 such vehicles are sold. "We'll need more head room," Mr. Wynne says.
(Since now it looks like the Big 3 will get a loan there is any doubt that Barack Obama will not extend the handout to one of his pet projects? And in fact may combine the two as part of the loan to the Big 3)
The U.S. should also do more to promote development of advanced vehicle batteries, he says. After access to capital, batteries are one of the biggest anxieties among U.S.-based electric and hybrid vehicle manufacturers – from the Detroit Three down to the smallest Silicon Valley EV upstart. Right now, there's no company producing advanced automotive batteries suitable for electric vehicles or hybrids in the U.S., Mr. Wynne says.
To the extent that such batteries are made in volume anywhere, it's in Japan, Korea or elsewhere in Asia. Executives at GM and Ford and their major U.S. based suppliers worry that when push comes to shove, expensive Asian battery making capacity will be dedicated first to Asian auto makers – mainly hybrid leader Toyota Motor Corp.
Moreover, trading U.S.-made gasoline engine blocks for Asian-made battery packs might not be quite what Congress had in mind when it decided to offer loans backed by U.S. tax money to subsidize electric-vehicle production.
Finally, U.S. electric-vehicle makers are hoping that the government can be not just the financier of last resort, but also a customer. "The federal government owns 600,000 vehicles," Mr. Wynne says. The government should be a buyer for electric vehicles – not just cars, but commercial vehicles.
There's no question that the electric-vehicle industry has scrambled to a higher plateau during the past few years. The association's conference included a small auto show where visitors could stroll from a prototype of GM's Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid, to a full-sized hybrid city bus made by Germany's Daimler AG, to a tiny, electric dump truck made by e-Ride Industries, a maker of neighborhood electric vehicles and small work vehicles that are catching on in places like national parks and college campuses.
Established auto makers, including Toyota, GM, Chrysler, Nissan Motor Co., all are talking about plans to field significant numbers of partially electric or fully electric vehicles over the next several years. Powerful interest groups – many of them members of Mr. Wynne's organization – see profit potential in diverting more of the money spent on transportation from the oil industry toward the electric utility industry – with a few dollars sprinkled on the technology industry (for new "smart" grid software and other enabling systems.)
Not so long ago, the electric-vehicle industry's moment seemed to have arrived, after nearly a century of frustration and failure. Soaring oil prices, technology advances and the enthusiasm of deep pocketed investors appeared to be coming together to overcome the obstacles that have relegated electric vehicles to the auto market's sidelines since the days of Thomas Edison.
Now, oil prices have crashed, clouding the economic case for switching to expensive battery-boosted cars. Investors are holding on to their cash, forcing companies like Tesla to scale back and scrounge for funding. And the legacy car makers – whose support for battery-boosted vehicles will be crucial if electric vehicles are to achieve sufficient sales volume to drive down costs – are on the ropes.
Long term, Mr. Wynne says, the case for switching the fuel for our daily commutes to electricity still makes sense, in terms of costs per mile, national security and environmental preservation.
"The short term," he says, "is tough."
The heads of the struggling Detroit auto makers aren't the only car makers looking for help from Washington. The electric vehicle industry has its hands out, too.
If anything, representatives of the electric and electrified vehicle business jumped ahead of the "legacy" auto industry in the transportation bailout queue that formed in the nation's capital last week. A conference sponsored by the Electric Drive Transportation Association attracted a crowd of electric vehicle manufacturers and their boosters to Washington's convention center during the first half of the week.
Officials from the Department of Energy on Monday presented tips to attendees on how electric vehicle companies could apply for federal loans. The CEOs of the legacy car industry – General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC -- didn't get to town with their begging bowls until Thursday.
Joseph White talks with Brian Wynne, president of the Electric Drive Transportation Association, about government support, research and development and the cost of driving electric vehicles. (Dec. 7)
The electric-vehicle industry positions itself as the future of personal transportation. President-elect Barack Obama is now the industry's highest ranking advocate. He's said he wants to see one million plug-in vehicles by 2015, as part of his broader goal to end U.S. dependence on Mideast oil.
But right now, the electric-vehicle community has a lot of the same problems as the legacy car business, and a few more besides. Brian Wynne, the head of the EDTA, says manufacturers in his group need the government's help now.
"We have a gap," he says. "We need to get over this gap."
The credit crunch and the economic slump are slamming the crop of electric-vehicle companies that sprung up in recent years, fueled in part by Silicon Valley venture-capital money.
FiskerTesla Motors LLC, once the darling of the green car movement, is now scrambling to stay afloat and is asking for a $400 million loan from the same $25 billion federal Energy Department program that Detroit's car makers are looking to tap in their own fight for survival.
Tesla is now taking some flak for seeking handouts from taxpayers, most of whom could never afford its current product, a racy electric sports car that starts at more than $100,000. Detroit's chiefs might say: Welcome to our world.
The electric-vehicle industry's need for government assistance doesn't stop with subsidized loans.
Mr. Wynne says the government's existing tax credits for purchases of electrified vehicles – meaning all-electric and gas-electric hybrids – should be expanded. Currently the credits, which range from $2,500 for a plug-in hybrid vehicle with a four kilowatt per hour battery pack to as much as $7,500 for an electric vehicle weighing under 10,000 pounds. (There are larger credits up to $15,000 for bigger, commercial electric and hybrid vehicles.) But these credits start to fade away once 250,000 such vehicles are sold. "We'll need more head room," Mr. Wynne says.
(Since now it looks like the Big 3 will get a loan there is any doubt that Barack Obama will not extend the handout to one of his pet projects? And in fact may combine the two as part of the loan to the Big 3)
The U.S. should also do more to promote development of advanced vehicle batteries, he says. After access to capital, batteries are one of the biggest anxieties among U.S.-based electric and hybrid vehicle manufacturers – from the Detroit Three down to the smallest Silicon Valley EV upstart. Right now, there's no company producing advanced automotive batteries suitable for electric vehicles or hybrids in the U.S., Mr. Wynne says.
To the extent that such batteries are made in volume anywhere, it's in Japan, Korea or elsewhere in Asia. Executives at GM and Ford and their major U.S. based suppliers worry that when push comes to shove, expensive Asian battery making capacity will be dedicated first to Asian auto makers – mainly hybrid leader Toyota Motor Corp.
Moreover, trading U.S.-made gasoline engine blocks for Asian-made battery packs might not be quite what Congress had in mind when it decided to offer loans backed by U.S. tax money to subsidize electric-vehicle production.
Finally, U.S. electric-vehicle makers are hoping that the government can be not just the financier of last resort, but also a customer. "The federal government owns 600,000 vehicles," Mr. Wynne says. The government should be a buyer for electric vehicles – not just cars, but commercial vehicles.
There's no question that the electric-vehicle industry has scrambled to a higher plateau during the past few years. The association's conference included a small auto show where visitors could stroll from a prototype of GM's Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid, to a full-sized hybrid city bus made by Germany's Daimler AG, to a tiny, electric dump truck made by e-Ride Industries, a maker of neighborhood electric vehicles and small work vehicles that are catching on in places like national parks and college campuses.
Established auto makers, including Toyota, GM, Chrysler, Nissan Motor Co., all are talking about plans to field significant numbers of partially electric or fully electric vehicles over the next several years. Powerful interest groups – many of them members of Mr. Wynne's organization – see profit potential in diverting more of the money spent on transportation from the oil industry toward the electric utility industry – with a few dollars sprinkled on the technology industry (for new "smart" grid software and other enabling systems.)
Not so long ago, the electric-vehicle industry's moment seemed to have arrived, after nearly a century of frustration and failure. Soaring oil prices, technology advances and the enthusiasm of deep pocketed investors appeared to be coming together to overcome the obstacles that have relegated electric vehicles to the auto market's sidelines since the days of Thomas Edison.
Now, oil prices have crashed, clouding the economic case for switching to expensive battery-boosted cars. Investors are holding on to their cash, forcing companies like Tesla to scale back and scrounge for funding. And the legacy car makers – whose support for battery-boosted vehicles will be crucial if electric vehicles are to achieve sufficient sales volume to drive down costs – are on the ropes.
Long term, Mr. Wynne says, the case for switching the fuel for our daily commutes to electricity still makes sense, in terms of costs per mile, national security and environmental preservation.
"The short term," he says, "is tough."
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Friday, December 5, 2008
National Parks to Allow Right-to-Carry
NRA
Friday, December 05, 2008
The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), through the National Park
Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has announced the final amended version of its changes to rules on carrying of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. DOI’s move will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms for lawful purposes on most DOI lands, and will make federal law consistent with the state law in which these public lands are located. NRA led the effort to amend the existing policy regarding the carrying and transportation of firearms on these federal lands.
“Today’s announcement by the U.S. Department of the Interior brings clarity and uniformity for law-abiding gun owners visiting our national parks,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. “We are pleased that the Interior Department recognizes the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's National Parks and wildlife refuges.”
DOI announced the rule change today and will publish the new regulations in the Federal Register. The new regulations allow right-to-carry permit holders to exercise their Second Amendment rights on national park and wildlife refuges in those states that recognize such permits. The move will provide consistency across our nation’s federal lands and put an end to the patchwork of regulations that governed different lands managed by different federal agencies. In the past, Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands allowed the carrying of firearms, while lands managed by DOI did not.
NRA has long held that amendments to those regulations were needed to reflect the changed legal situations with respect to state laws on carrying firearms. Earlier this year, fifty-one U.S. Senators sent a strong bipartisan letter to the DOI supporting the move to make state firearms laws applicable to national park lands and refuges.
“These changes respect the Second Amendment rights of honest citizens as they enjoy our public lands,” concluded Cox. “We applaud the Interior Department’s efforts to amend these out of date regulations
As a single female hiker who with my dog hikes in National Parks, (like Glacier National Park pictured above) this is great news! My 2nd Amendment rights nor my ability to protect myself from animals ( or human) should not stop at the border of a National Park.
Friday, December 05, 2008
The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), through the National Park
Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has announced the final amended version of its changes to rules on carrying of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. DOI’s move will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms for lawful purposes on most DOI lands, and will make federal law consistent with the state law in which these public lands are located. NRA led the effort to amend the existing policy regarding the carrying and transportation of firearms on these federal lands.“Today’s announcement by the U.S. Department of the Interior brings clarity and uniformity for law-abiding gun owners visiting our national parks,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. “We are pleased that the Interior Department recognizes the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's National Parks and wildlife refuges.”
DOI announced the rule change today and will publish the new regulations in the Federal Register. The new regulations allow right-to-carry permit holders to exercise their Second Amendment rights on national park and wildlife refuges in those states that recognize such permits. The move will provide consistency across our nation’s federal lands and put an end to the patchwork of regulations that governed different lands managed by different federal agencies. In the past, Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands allowed the carrying of firearms, while lands managed by DOI did not.
NRA has long held that amendments to those regulations were needed to reflect the changed legal situations with respect to state laws on carrying firearms. Earlier this year, fifty-one U.S. Senators sent a strong bipartisan letter to the DOI supporting the move to make state firearms laws applicable to national park lands and refuges.
“These changes respect the Second Amendment rights of honest citizens as they enjoy our public lands,” concluded Cox. “We applaud the Interior Department’s efforts to amend these out of date regulations
As a single female hiker who with my dog hikes in National Parks, (like Glacier National Park pictured above) this is great news! My 2nd Amendment rights nor my ability to protect myself from animals ( or human) should not stop at the border of a National Park.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
How about Some Good Michigan News for a Change?
Spartan Motors Defies Economy, Posts Sales Increase of 59.5 Percent
Capital Gains, 12/3/2008
Charlotte, MI-based Spartan Motors saw its third quarter net sales increase by 59.5 percent from its 2007 third quarter results.
Spartan reported record third quarter net earnings of $14.7 million, compared with net earnings of $2.6 million the same quarter of 2007.
"This was an excellent quarter for Spartan, especially given the tumultuous national economic environment," says president and CEO, John Sztykiel.
"Our market diversification and flexible manufacturing model continue to allow us to grow and profitably compete in difficult times. During the quarter, we ramped up production rapidly and efficiently to complete a sizable military order.”
The 2008 third quarter results represent the best third quarter in the company’s history.
"Our military role is evolving from a rapid production and deployment stage to a long-term sustainment and partnership model, marked by smaller volumes of a wider range of mine-protected variants,” Sztykiel says. “Emergency-rescue continues to be a great foundation with tremendous opportunity."
Spartan Motors was also recently recognized by the U.S. Military for its rapid production and deployment of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles.
Interesting sidebar about this is the history of Spartan Motors:
Spartan Motors, Inc. got its start in 1976 outside of Lansing, Michigan, when a small group of automotive engineers who lost their jobs due to a bankruptcy decided to draw on their collective expertise and launch their own company.
Their formula was simple: build a high-quality custom product for a specific consumer, sell it at a fair price and provide great service. The team designed, built and delivered its first custom fire truck cab and chassis a few months later – and Spartan Chassis was born
And Spartan Motors in a non-Union plant
Capital Gains, 12/3/2008
Charlotte, MI-based Spartan Motors saw its third quarter net sales increase by 59.5 percent from its 2007 third quarter results.
Spartan reported record third quarter net earnings of $14.7 million, compared with net earnings of $2.6 million the same quarter of 2007.
"This was an excellent quarter for Spartan, especially given the tumultuous national economic environment," says president and CEO, John Sztykiel.
"Our market diversification and flexible manufacturing model continue to allow us to grow and profitably compete in difficult times. During the quarter, we ramped up production rapidly and efficiently to complete a sizable military order.”
The 2008 third quarter results represent the best third quarter in the company’s history.
"Our military role is evolving from a rapid production and deployment stage to a long-term sustainment and partnership model, marked by smaller volumes of a wider range of mine-protected variants,” Sztykiel says. “Emergency-rescue continues to be a great foundation with tremendous opportunity."
Spartan Motors was also recently recognized by the U.S. Military for its rapid production and deployment of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles.
Interesting sidebar about this is the history of Spartan Motors:
Spartan Motors, Inc. got its start in 1976 outside of Lansing, Michigan, when a small group of automotive engineers who lost their jobs due to a bankruptcy decided to draw on their collective expertise and launch their own company.
Their formula was simple: build a high-quality custom product for a specific consumer, sell it at a fair price and provide great service. The team designed, built and delivered its first custom fire truck cab and chassis a few months later – and Spartan Chassis was born
And Spartan Motors in a non-Union plant
GM Restructuring Plan for Long-Term Viability and Interactive map of US auto Jobs
Submitted to Senate Banking Committee & House of Representatives Financial Services Committee
December 2, 2008
GM Plan
Its long and I have not had time to read it all yet but wanted to get it posted.
Also Interactive map that displays the number of auto jobs across the country.
GM Plan
Its long and I have not had time to read it all yet but wanted to get it posted.
Also Interactive map that displays the number of auto jobs across the country.
241,883 total auto jobs in Michigan
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Hundreds gather as UAW addresses domestic auto crisis
Louis Aguilar
Detroit News
DETROIT -- Hundreds of United Auto Workers locals have
converged at the Marriott Hotel in the Renaissance Center this morning, and many are prepared to be asked by top UAW leaders to reopen national labor agreements that will allow for a vast overhaul of the way autoworkers are paid, the health and retiree benefits they receive, and determine how many will hold on to their jobs.
The local leaders said it was unclear if they were going to vote today on reopening, which is the first step toward a general vote for its 139,000 active workers. But on Tuesday, each of the Detroit automakers made it clear they intend to reopen the 2007 labor agreements.....
They could save some $$ by eliminating benefits to partners of same-sex couple. Anyone discussing that??
The Big Three automakers -- DaimlerChrysler,, General Motors and Ford Motor -- announced in June that they would offer health benefits to the same-sex partners of their 466,000 hourly and salaried employees in the United States. This was a ''landmark move'' in the effort by corporate America to provide such benefits for gay and lesbian couples, the report concluded.
I could not find much on the cost of providing these benefits however
A 2005 Hewitt Associates study revealed that a majority of employers experience a total benefits cost increase of less than 1 percent.
Several studies have shown that enrollment rates tend to be in the 1 percent to 2 percent range.
2% of 446,000 is over 93,000
93,000 @ $395 for health care for active workers and $950 for retirees. Equals for active workers $36,735.000.00 and for retirees $88,350.000.00
Total $125,085.000.00
Eliminating same sex couple partner benefits is an over 25 million savings to GM.
So if we are going to talk about eliminating benefits for actual employees...
Detroit News
DETROIT -- Hundreds of United Auto Workers locals have
converged at the Marriott Hotel in the Renaissance Center this morning, and many are prepared to be asked by top UAW leaders to reopen national labor agreements that will allow for a vast overhaul of the way autoworkers are paid, the health and retiree benefits they receive, and determine how many will hold on to their jobs.The local leaders said it was unclear if they were going to vote today on reopening, which is the first step toward a general vote for its 139,000 active workers. But on Tuesday, each of the Detroit automakers made it clear they intend to reopen the 2007 labor agreements.....
They could save some $$ by eliminating benefits to partners of same-sex couple. Anyone discussing that??
The Big Three automakers -- DaimlerChrysler,, General Motors and Ford Motor -- announced in June that they would offer health benefits to the same-sex partners of their 466,000 hourly and salaried employees in the United States. This was a ''landmark move'' in the effort by corporate America to provide such benefits for gay and lesbian couples, the report concluded.
I could not find much on the cost of providing these benefits however
A 2005 Hewitt Associates study revealed that a majority of employers experience a total benefits cost increase of less than 1 percent.
Several studies have shown that enrollment rates tend to be in the 1 percent to 2 percent range.
2% of 446,000 is over 93,000
93,000 @ $395 for health care for active workers and $950 for retirees. Equals for active workers $36,735.000.00 and for retirees $88,350.000.00
Total $125,085.000.00
Eliminating same sex couple partner benefits is an over 25 million savings to GM.
So if we are going to talk about eliminating benefits for actual employees...
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Saul Anuzis on Hugh Hewitt discussing the importance of Tech
As you know by now our own Saul Anuzis is running for RNC chairman. Yesterday he was a guest on Townhall contributor, Hugh Hewitt's radio show discussing among other things, the role of technology in running campaigns AND winning elections.
Saul highlighted the importance of blogging, Twitter, FaceBook and YouTube as the new medium for grassroots organization, assimilating information and reaching voters. Saul himself is on the cutting edge in using this new technology, having his own blog, Twittering , Facebook and YouTube.
Saul noted that Barack Obama was very successful in using these new forms of media technology in his campaign and had over 60,000 people following him on Twitter.
On ScienceDaily Dr. Paul Haridakis, associate professor of Communication Studies at Kent State University and a long-time scholar in the area of the impact of media on the political landscape in the U.S. writes about the new social media in an article entitled "Social Media And Presidential Election: Impact Of YouTube, MySpace"
He states, "Many people will watch videos and use traditional media like TV to acquire political information about the candidates, but they also are going to the Internet and using social networking sites to see who people they know support. The information gleaned from their social networks may be the information they find most credible and persuasive.
They'll listen to their buddy on his MySpace page, not necessarily the traditional messengers that candidates employ to reach out to the voters, or even the candidates themselves.
That exploits the power of social media pretty well," Haridakis says. "The candidates in this election season have not fully harnessed the power of these tools."
Saul wants to "fully harness the power" of these tools into the Republican party and rightly so. As Dr.Haridakis notes, Blogs, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Internet TV are the new media and will become increasing important and utilized in all new campaigns and are becoming vital to winning.
Kudos to Saul for bringing this to the fore front for the Republican party and all you bloggers out there, keep doing what you do!
And if you haven't yet checked out or use some of the other methods of social media mentioned,I encourage you to do so.
Saul highlighted the importance of blogging, Twitter, FaceBook and YouTube as the new medium for grassroots organization, assimilating information and reaching voters. Saul himself is on the cutting edge in using this new technology, having his own blog, Twittering , Facebook and YouTube.
Saul noted that Barack Obama was very successful in using these new forms of media technology in his campaign and had over 60,000 people following him on Twitter.
On ScienceDaily Dr. Paul Haridakis, associate professor of Communication Studies at Kent State University and a long-time scholar in the area of the impact of media on the political landscape in the U.S. writes about the new social media in an article entitled "Social Media And Presidential Election: Impact Of YouTube, MySpace"
He states, "Many people will watch videos and use traditional media like TV to acquire political information about the candidates, but they also are going to the Internet and using social networking sites to see who people they know support. The information gleaned from their social networks may be the information they find most credible and persuasive.
They'll listen to their buddy on his MySpace page, not necessarily the traditional messengers that candidates employ to reach out to the voters, or even the candidates themselves.
That exploits the power of social media pretty well," Haridakis says. "The candidates in this election season have not fully harnessed the power of these tools."
Saul wants to "fully harness the power" of these tools into the Republican party and rightly so. As Dr.Haridakis notes, Blogs, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Internet TV are the new media and will become increasing important and utilized in all new campaigns and are becoming vital to winning.
Kudos to Saul for bringing this to the fore front for the Republican party and all you bloggers out there, keep doing what you do!
And if you haven't yet checked out or use some of the other methods of social media mentioned,I encourage you to do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
